Delegates to COP‑13 met in committees throughout
the day. Committee I addressed the Bigleaf Mahogany Working Group, evaluation of
the Review of Significant Trade (RST), review of plant‑related resolutions,
registration of Appendix I species in captivity for commercial purposes, and
criteria for amendment of Appendices I and II. Committee II considered economic
incentives, ex situ breeding and in situ conservation, review of
resolutions and decisions, and reporting.

COMMITTEE I

BIGLEAF MAHOGANY:
BRAZIL introduced the report on the Bigleaf Mahogany Working Group (Doc.39),
highlighting recommendations on national and subregional management plans,
forest inventories and capacity building. PARAGUAY, ARGENTINA, MEXICO and others
said the Working Group should continue its work, and PC Chair Clemente stressed
the need to secure its funds. The EU said the PC=s
priority actions on bigleaf mahogany should become decisions and be extended to
importing countries. TRAFFIC and WWF called for monitoring implementation of
these decisions.

REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT TRADE:
AC Chair Althaus presented proposed terms of reference (ToR) for the RST
evaluation (Doc.40). The EU supported the ToR. MALAYSIA, supported by TRINIDAD
AND TOBAGO, proposed: deleting a proposal; to engage consultants to assist
evaluation; adding text on financial assistance and capacity building for
implementation; and deleting language on monitoring and review, noting that the
scientific authority of the Party involved should undertake monitoring. The EC,
Chair of the ToR working group, said the ToR guarantees objectivity, and
suggested amendments to reflect that the ongoing monitoring and reviewing
process should take into account differing points of view as to where authority
should lie. The document was approved with the proposed amendments.

REVIEW OF PLANT RESOLUTIONS:
The US introduced the document on the review of resolutions on plants and plant
trade, and the definition of >artificially
propagated=
(Doc.51). On Res. Conf. 11.11 (Definition of >artificially
propagated=),
the US opposed an alternative definition proposed by Chile allowing some
Appendix I plants grown from wild‑collected seeds to be considered as
artificially propagated and, with CANADA and the EU, suggested that such species
be considered under ranching provisions. The Secretariat warned that the
alternative definition may be interpreted in a way that violates the Convention.

SOUTH AFRICA, SWITZERLAND, MALAYSIA, ARGENTINA, BRAZIL and
others supported Chile=s
definition, indicating that for some species, particularly long‑lived
late‑maturing trees, artificially propagated seeds collected from Appendix I
species can be useful for conservation of wild populations. BOLIVIA proposed
limiting collection to countries of origin. MEXICO requested explicit reference
to the percentage of seeds extracted, and said that the collected material
should serve as seed stock and for reforestation activities. The US requested
that the PC monitor the trade impact of Appendix I propagated seeds,
particularly cycads. A drafting group was established to revise this proposal.

After delegates agreed to recommendations on Aquilaria
spp. and Harpagophytum spp. species in the PC Chair=s
report (Doc.9.2.1), SOUTH AFRICA asked the Secretariat to explore options to
include information on the impact of a CITES listing on poor peoples=
livelihoods when reviewing proposals to amend the Appendices. While the US said
proposals for listing a species in the Appendices should be based on science and
not socioeconomic aspects, FAUNA AND FLORA INTERNATIONAL noted the importance of
linking biodiversity conservation with poverty reduction. Chair Dublin suggested
Australia and South Africa draft alternative text.

REGISTRATION FOR APPENDIX I SPECIES:
AC Chair Althaus presented the document on evaluating registration of operations
that breed Appendix I species in captivity for commercial purposes (Doc.56).
MEXICO, QATAR, SENEGAL, ISRAEL, INDIA, ARGENTINA and the PHILIPPINES supported
the AC=s
recommendations on improving the registration system in accordance to Res. Conf.
12.10 (Registration for Appendix I species breeding), but opposed the
Secretariat=s
suggestion that the system might not need to be kept. ISRAEL and QATAR noted a
compliance and implementation problem with Res. Conf. 12.10. AUSTRALIA said the
SC should not examine trade in Appendix I species from non‑registered
operations. WORLD SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF ANIMALS, WWF, SPECIES SURVIVAL
NETWORK, GLOBAL TIGER FORUM and WILDLIFE TRUST OF INDIA urged maintaining
registration. Delegates established a working group to incorporate the AC=s
recommendations into Res. Conf. 12.10, with the exception of the recommendation
to refer discussion on trade of non‑registered operations to the SC.

CRITERIA FOR AMENDMENT OF APPENDICES I
AND II: AC Chair Althaus introduced a document on
criteria for amendment of Appendices I and II (Doc.57), noting the criteria were
tested on a wide range of animal and plant species and deemed applicable and
scientifically sound. He said the proposed resolution amends and revises Res.
Conf. 9.24 (Rev.Cop12) (Criteria for amendment of Appendices I and II). Many
delegates including the EU, JAPAN, AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND, the US, SOUTH AFRICA,
CANADA and MEXICO supported the document with additional amendments suggested by
the Secretariat, and opposed reopening the text. NORWAY and SENEGAL supported
deleting a paragraph referring to the precautionary approach as the Secretariat
had amended. ARGENTINA, HUMANE SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL and the WHALE AND DOLPHIN
CONSERVATION SOCIETY preferred retaining the paragraph. MALAYSIA, supported by
ARGENTINA and IWMC, preferred retaining original language referring to possible
future extinction of a species, while the US opposed, noting that ambiguities
existed in the original language.

NEW ZEALAND suggested the criteria be reviewed
every few COPs, but delegates opposed setting a specific timeframe for future
review. FAO supported adopting the resolution. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE lamented a
proliferation of informal criteria. Delegates approved the resolution by
consensus.

COMMITTEE II

ECONOMIC INCENTIVES: The Secretariat introduced a document on
economic incentives and trade policy (Doc.13 (Rev.1)). NEW ZEALAND said economic
incentives must be targeted and compatible with the WTO, and INDONESIA said they
require adequate regulation and law enforcement. INDIA stressed the need to
provide economic incentives for local stakeholders. Regarding national trade
policy reviews, NEW ZEALAND, the US and AUSTRALIA noted that some of the
proposals may go beyond CITES=
mandate and are resource intensive. SAINT LUCIA called for assistance for
developing country and SIDS participation in workshops. The EU supported seeking
GEF funds to carry out the review. INDONESIA said the review should assess
whether national policies build local capacity. Delegates approved draft
paragraphs with an amendment proposed by Uganda clarifying that the scope of the
review is limited to wild flora and fauna‑related trade policies.

Regarding further work, BOLIVIA stressed the need
to address all CITES‑listed species. AUSTRALIA, the US, ARGENTINA and DEFENDERS
OF WILDLIFE stressed the need for country‑level work rather than a second
workshop. COLOMBIA highlighted that workshops could benefit regional‑level
communication. SAINT LUCIA supported both holding a workshop and country‑level
work. TRAFFIC said future workshops should be organized jointly with the CBD.
FAUNA AND FLORA INTERNATIONAL also supported the workshop, noting that perverse
incentives may compromise regulation and enforcement efforts. GLOBAL TIGER FORUM
said the issue of incentives may go beyond CITES capacity and mandate.

EX SITU
BREEDING AND IN SITU CONSERVATION:
AC Chair Althaus introduced the AC=s
report (Doc.56.3.1), noting recommendations to refer the issue to the SC and
consider it in the context of the CITES‑CBD work programme. The BAHAMAS and the
EU stressed that the issue touches upon access and benefit‑sharing (ABS). While
the EU, INDIA, JAPAN and TRAFFIC supported the AC=s
recommendations, the US and ISRAEL opposed. WWF said the AC should continue
working on the issue. The Secretariat proposed that the SC, through its
clearing‑house mechanism on technical implementation issues, continue to
consider the issue and report to COP‑14.

MEXICO presented its proposal aimed at encouraging
cooperation between Parties with ex situ breeding operations and those
with in situ conservation programmes (Doc.56.3.2). MALAYSIA, CHILE, and
the BAHAMAS supported the proposal. BOLIVIA, INDIA and BRAZIL suggested noting
ongoing negotiations on ABS in the CBD. The EU and JAPAN said adopting the
proposal is premature, with the EU favoring revising the MOU between CITES and
the CBD. Mexico was asked to revise its proposal and report back to the
committee.

RESOLUTIONS REVIEW: The Secretariat introduced a document on review of resolutions
(Doc.16 (Rev.1)). Delegates approved revisions of: Res. Conf. 4.6 (Rev COP12)
(Deadlines for submission of documents); Res. Conf. 11.21 (Annotations to
Appendices I and II); and Res. Conf. 9.11 (Interpretation and application of
quotas for species included in Appendix I).

Regarding Res. Conf. 5.11 (Pre‑Convention
specimens), delegates agreed to use the date of incorporation of a species into
an Appendix to define such specimens.

Regarding consolidation of Res. Conf. 10.6
(Control of trade in tourist souvenir specimens) and Res. Conf. 12.9 (Personal
household effects), the EU, INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE and
INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PROJECT suggested establishing a working group
to consider the issue within the context of household effects. Delegates
approved consolidating the resolutions provisionally pending the outcome of
discussions on household effects.

DECISIONS REVIEW:
Delegates approved most of the proposals on the review of decisions (Doc.17).
Regarding consolidation of Decision 9.7 (Issuance of permits) into Res. Conf.
12.3 (Permits and certificates), the US proposed, and delegates agreed, that
Parties verify the origin of Appendix I species to avoid issuing exports permits
when use is primarily for commercial purposes and specimens do not originate in
CITES‑registered breeding operations. Regarding consolidation of Decision 9.31
(Reports on infractions) into Res. Conf. 11.3 (Compliance and enforcement), the
US suggested, and delegates agreed, that a report on enforcement matters be
submitted at each SC meeting in addition to COP meetings. The US opposed
integrating Decision 9.15 (Violation of CITES by diplomats and UN troops) into
Res. Conf. 12.9 (Personal and household effects), and agreed to propose a draft
resolution on CITES violation by diplomats and UN troops at a later stage.

Regarding consolidation of Decisions 10.54, 10.76
and 10.86 on trade in alien species into a COP‑13 resolution, the EU proposed
that the Secretariat, in conjunction with the AC and PC, cooperate with the CBD
Secretariat, in addition to the IUCN/SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group.
Following a request by NEW ZEALAND, Chair Brasher said the Secretariat will make
the EU proposal available in writing in order to enable discussions later during
the week. Delegates agreed to continue consultations on decisions proposed for
deletion.

REPORTS: The
Secretariat presented, and delegates approved, a proposal on reporting
requirements (Doc.18), including the format for biennial reports. Delegates
added a decision directing the Secretariat to collaborate with other
biodiversity‑related conventions to prevent duplication in reporting
requirements.

IN THE CORRIDORS

Committee I had the opportunity to address some
plant‑related items, an area some delegates said is often sidelined to make way
for the more �sexy� animal topics. Several �plant
people� expressed optimism, noting that ramin is expected to garner considerable
attention when discussing amendments to the Appendices.

Committee II
discussions on ex situ breeding and in situ conservation
predictably touched upon the sensitive issue of access and benefit sharing.
While recognizing the relationship between the two situs, some delegates
want to make sure that Appendix I species bred ex situ have been legally
obtained and provide benefits for the conservation of their cousins in the wild.

This issue of
the Earth Negotiations
Bulletin � <enb@iisd.org>
is written and edited by
Soledad Aguilar, Bo-Alex
Fredvik, Leila Mead,
Charlotte Salpin, and Mark
Schulman. The Digital Editor
is David Fernau. The Editor
is Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>
and the Director of IISD
Reporting Services is
Langston James "Kimo" Goree
VI <kimo@iisd.org>.
The Sustaining Donors of the
Bulletin are the Government
of the United States of
America (through the
Department of State Bureau
of Oceans and International
Environmental and Scientific
Affairs), the Government of
Canada (through CIDA), the
Swiss Agency for
Environment, Forests and
Landscape (SAEFL), the
United Kingdom (through the
Department for International
Development - DFID), the
Danish Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, the Government of
Germany (through the German
Federal Ministry of
Environment - BMU, and the
German Federal Ministry of
Development Cooperation -
BMZ), and the Netherlands
Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
General Support for the
Bulletin during 2004 is
provided by the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the
Government of Australia,
Austrian Federal Ministry of
Agriculture, Forestry,
Environment and Water
Management, the Ministry of
Environment and the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of
Sweden, the Ministry of
Environment and the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of
Norway, the Ministry of
Environment and the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of
Finland, Swan International,
the Japanese Ministry of
Environment (through the
Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies -
IGES) and the Japanese
Ministry of Economy, Trade
and Industry (through the
Global Industrial and Social
Progress Research Institute
- GISPRI). Funding for
translation of the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin in
French has been provided by
the International
Organization of the Francophonie (IOF) and the
French Ministry of Foreign
Affairs. The opinions
expressed in the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin are
those of the authors and do
not necessarily reflect the
views of IISD or other
donors. Excerpts from the
Earth Negotiations Bulletin
may be used in
non-commercial publications
with appropriate academic
citation. For information on
the Bulletin, including
requests to provide
reporting services, contact
the Director of IISD
Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>,
+1-212-644-0217 or 212 East
47th St. #21F, New York, NY
10017, USA.